In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Congressmen Fail the Middle Class

Jill

But Congresswomen don’t.

According to the Drum Major Institute’s middle-class scorecard, Congress in general failed the middle class — but congresswomen faired far better than congressmen.

While only 16% of the House is female, 32% of those who scored A’s on the 2005 Scorecard were women- and, astonishingly, 40% of women in the House got A’s, compared to just 16% of men. In the Senate, which is only 14% female, 22% of Senators who scored A’s were women, and 14% of female senators got A’s, compared to 8% of male senators.

Congresswomen still aren’t doing well enough. The average grade that congresswomen earned in both the House and the Senate was just a “C”- but that’s still a significant improvement on the congressmen and Congress as a whole, whose overall average was an “F”.

One more argument for more women in Congress. And it’s worth noting that women are severely underrepresented in all elected offices in the United States — and this country ranks 68th in the world in terms of women’s representation in the legislature (just a thought for those people who would argue that American women have achieved equality).

Thanks to Elana for the link.

9 thoughts on Congressmen Fail the Middle Class

  1. And it’s worth noting that women are severely underrepresented in all elected offices in the United States … (just a thought for those people who would argue that American women have achieved equality).

    What we’re striving for is equality of opportunity, not 50%, right? Maybe not as many women strive for elected office, no?

    Both of Maine’s senators are women, Maine is not exactly a bastion of progressive feminism. What’s the right thing to measure?

  2. I don’t know if this qualifies as an argument for more women in Congress; it doesn’t necessarily imply that women are better at politics than men are. But, hey, there are plenty of other arguments for why there should be more women in Congress and I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing more of them for any reason. The real problem with the low approval ratings probably comes from the high incumbency rate: in the House, I think something like 98% of representatives are reelected as incumbents. We need fresh faces of both genders. More women will help, but it won’t solve the problem (not that I think you’re suggesting it will, I’m just sayin’).

  4. I wonder it’s because more of the congresswomen come from middle-class backgrounds or if they are just as likely to come from the upper class, but have a different base. I’d like to see more publically funded campaigns so more middle and working class people of all genders can run for office.

  5. What we’re striving for is equality of opportunity, not 50%, right? Maybe not as many women strive for elected office, no?

    In answer to your first question, I’m not sure what I’m striving for, but if you’re striving for equality of opportunity, you’re asking for something that already exists. Most would agree that there are no institutional barriers to women seeking elected office.

    In answer to your second question, certainly not as many women strive for elected office. Among the women who do strive for elected office, a much larger proportion of them than men did not originally come up for the idea of running for office themselves. In the general population, women are less interested and therefore less knowledgeable about politics.

  6. What we’re striving for is equality of opportunity, not 50%, right?

    I would argue that we don’t have equality of opportunity, though. Certainly there are no laws preventing women from running for office, but women face more barriers to running for office than men do. Besides the fact that women tend to be less financially well off than men, it certainly isn’t easy for a married woman with children to run for office due to the disproportionate amount of domestic work women are expected to do as compared to men – but in American politics, it seems to be a bonus to be able to trot out an “All American” family. Not to mention the ingrained sexism of the populace, which leaves you still asking poll questions like “Is America ready for a female President?” “Would you vote for a female candidate?”, and only getting responses in the 64-90% range. In a society where women had full political equality of opportunity, the answer to such questions would be universally 100%, or ideally, the question would not even be considered. Even 10% of the population saying they would not vote for a female candidate regardless of issues, or would not support a female president is a problem.

    There is much more I want to say about this topic, as I think it over frequently, but unfortunately I didn’t sleep a wink last night due to 90% humidity and not having a/c, so my thoughts are a little out of order. I hope the above made some sense.

  7. In the general population, women are less interested and therefore less knowledgeable about politics.

    It’s important to ask why women are less interested in politics in the general populace. Could it be because the male-dominated political establishment shoves women’s issues under the bus? Because there are few female politicians to relate to? Because so few political pundits are women? Because women are, as you mentioned above, rarely groomed for politics the way men are? Because of a combination of poverty, disproportionate abouts of childrearing and domestic work in addition to employment rob them of the time to become politically engaged? Because more people seem to be publicising the opinion that women are too dumb to be allowed to vote?

  8. Could it be because the male-dominated political establishment shoves women’s issues under the bus? Because there are few female politicians to relate to? Because so few political pundits are women? Because women are, as you mentioned above, rarely groomed for politics the way men are? Because of a combination of poverty, disproportionate abouts of childrearing and domestic work in addition to employment rob them of the time to become politically engaged? Because more people seem to be publicising the opinion that women are too dumb to be allowed to vote?

    People disagree on the reasons. Firstly, women are less likely to be found in those professions such as law which are generally jumping off points toward entering elective office. A recent study by Jennifer Lawless (Stanford) and Richard Fox (Union College) seems to suggest though that even women who have achieved the necessary professional status are less confident about their own qualifications to run than men, even when they are just as well qualified. They also suggest women are less likely to be recruited by party officials, someone contradicting my earlier post.

    It’s interesting to note that womens’ participation at the ballot box didn’t equal mens’ until the 1980s, over half a century after they won suffrage in all states.

    Finally, from skimming over some articles, it seems that there are actually differences in the substantive legislation that women bring up- women are more likely to propose legislation that deals with womens’ socioeconomic problems, including education, health care and poverty.

  9. ROR YEARS I HAVE WATCHED OUR PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON , I KEPT THINKING IF WE HAD WOMEN AND MINORITIES, IT WOULD GET BETTER, WRONG, EVERYTHING IS SO POLITICAL AND CORPERATE, AS ANYONE TALKS AS THEY VOTE, YOU KNOW RIGHT THEN WHO THEY WORK FOR.

Comments are currently closed.